Homosexual Books for First Graders

[yeah5]

actually Rei Zero, jellyfish have been fossilized. You argument is common and it is good in theory. i've heard that a starfish embryo from before the Cambrian explosion was fossilized. If similarly complex organisms existed before the explosion, they should show up in the fossil record.

also, we have intermediates thoughout the fossil record, but not the right kind. we have intermediates between different types of horses, but that's different. what about intermediate fossils with half-legs? don't use a snake as an example (with the dissapearing claw things) i mean a fossil. we need fossils with half-arms, or half-fins. we dont have nearly the amount of intermediates you think. what we have aren't what we need.

[Green_Pikachu]

guys, why are we talking about fossils? the fact of the matter is, robbing homosexual couples of their rights is immoral. Sorovis never defended his point of why homosexuals aren't allowed to have the same rights. i love how he ducked that issue.

[Rei_Zero]

Yeah5...your difficulty to read amazes me. For one, I never said complex life, I said diverse life. Complex is different from diverse. Diversity refers to various different kinds. Complexity refers to how complicated life was, ex.comparing bacteria to a multicellular organims. For two, I said FEW fossils, not no fossils. I never neglected that soft bodied parts can leave fossils, just that they were more difficult to form, needing more precise conditions than fossils with hard parts. That means far less fossils form for soft-bodied animals as the probability that something without hard parts fossilizing would have to fulfill more narrow requirements, leading to a lower probability. Therefore, we don't have many soft-bodied fossils compared to hard-bodied fossils because very few get fossilized over the ages compared to hard-bodied fossils. Because of the much lower rate of fossilization, fewer fossils of soft-bodied organisms are formed which lowers the number of different organisms found that represent the diversity of life at the time, a number that is already only a fraction of the number of diverse organisms that actually evolved in that time range, due to the fact that not every example of a species will be fossilized, being that fossilization needs very strict conditions to happen.

Have you ever heard of lobe-finned fish? Yeah, the don't have arms but they do have bones with muscle attachment on their fins.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm
Here's a link that demonstrates intermediates between fish and amphibians. Pay close attention to the paragraph where they talk about Sauripterus. Note the intermediate appendages which you say was lacking in the fossil record. Also
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1a.html
for a lot more evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

PS:Before you start to whine, when I say transitional forms I don't neccessarily mean direct ancestors, but organisms that could just as easily have branched off from the direct ancestor after a certain trait evolved.

EDIT:GP, you have a point...^^:

[Sorovis]

Vaginal sex is harmful to the body also. Not a difficult concept, and, whether you want to see it or not, the facts are that no form of sexual contact that involves intercourse is not harmful in some way to the body. The penis can suffer friction burns and lacerations, the vulva can be made overly tender (in vaginal intercourse), etc., etc. If you want to propose that one type of sex is wrong because it causes miniscule damage (that does heal) to the body, then you must also wish to remain a virgin until your death.

So of course any ruptures and fissures in the rectum that can result in dangerous infection and further damage to the body are only minor damage, right? Fact of the matter is, as I have repeated many times, anything can sustain damage no matter how resistant it may be. The rectum is not designed to withstand any sexual activities; therefore it will be damaged when doing so.

If Diet Coke caused damage, yes, it might be removed; or it might be given warning labels, like some sugar-free gums are (i.e., "excessive consumption may have laxative effect") - but something like Diet Coke has chemicals in it that can cause all sorts of things (the same with Coke, the same with almost everything). What chemicals does sperm have that could possibly cause harm in one body and not the other? And again, I find you totally ignoring the fact that homosexuality is not just about anal sex; and, while you've said you don't think it is, you obviously can't see past it, either. If you were able to, then you would realise that lesbians don't have anal sex at all - and straight couples have anal sex, too. I've said all of this before - and I will say what I said then again, too - you aren't arguing for anything but sexual conservatism, which is not about homosexuality and therefore has little to no place in this argument.

I am arguing right now about homosexual marriage and why homosexuality in general is wrong. Anal sex may not be the focus of homosexuality, but it certainly is involved. Also, lesbians may not do sodomy exactly, but similar activities (ie., foreign objects instead of sexual organs). I have also said that anal sex in general is wrong, and I do not know why you insist on referring to the point heterosexual couples do it as well. I forget how we got on the topic of homosexual sexual activities, but if you wish to return to the basic debate over homosexuality, I will gladly return as well.

Actually, when you start off with a preconception, and believe you're right about it, then yes, you will look for that which supports you and will tend to ignore that which states otherwise. That's the way people work. I'm not saying I don't, because everybody does - but at least some people are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to people they know nothing of, rather than deciding something of them before they have the right to do so. Sound familiar? I'm talking about someone you know quite well, I think.

And again I say you do not know everything about yourself and it is pointless to act as if you do. I did not say how you became bisexual, I offered reasons to how it may have come along since there is no evidence it is genetic.

Now, I've paid attention to your example of someone who became a proponent of homosexuality not being genetic; but that's one person. I've never said he or she didn't exist; what I have said is that, as one person, he or she is far from everyone, and he or she does not represent anyone but him- or herself. You also have not actually cited your example - all you have done is tell me of some vague individual, which I can do in the reverse situation; it reminds me of your argument that some gay people become straight, which, apparently, you thought "proved" homosexuality not to be genetic, and to be "wrong" - but I explained how it could easily be genetic, and how even if you were right, it would still not prove homosexuality to be wrong. It's a huge leap to go from, "it's not genetic," to, "it's not genetic, therefore it is a sin!" And, no, I don't think I am biased in terms of the religious alignment of the sources you cite; it's a very prominent trend that they're FRC, or IRC, or Christian groups trying to "save" gay people, etc., etc. It's not my fault if those are your sites of choice to reference; it's yours.

You proposing that homosexuality is genetic and unavoidable is one proposing since it is unavoidable, then it cannot be a sin in any fair definition. By disproving that, I have shown that it is at some point a choice and is changeable and or avoidable. I would also like to note my reason for homosexuality being a sin is due to the negative effects on the homosexual themself and those around them. At no point did I ever say anything not genetic was automatically wrong.

Our brains are not naturally expanding and contracting, give-take organs. For them to work properly, there have to be billions of pathways, and with every loss of size, some pathways are lost along with the neurons lying along them. If your Cerebellum were to swell, do you really think that the parts around it would shrink to accomodate that? No, unless your brain was somehow prone to reshaping itself without loss of ability. It isn't, though, as it would be like removing a part of your brain and so removing whatever it was that made certain abilities possible. That's why when the brain swells, parts die and pathways are lost, causing, as I said, memory loss, paralysis, and sometimes irreversible brain damage. In an adult brain, the obstructions caused by even a small swelling or shrinkage would be enough to drastically change the behaviour, and it would not be from one normal to the next; it would be, perhaps, dementia, hallucinations, loss of speech, etc., etc.

Fair enough, now I would like you to show me to a site that explains the difference in brain size with homosexuals.

How, exactly, are sexual urges comparable to murder? Why should an urge that two people both have in relation to one another be supressed? What harm is coming from it? None. Murder, however, is never voluntary on the behalf of the victim; it is a violent taking of life, and causes immense trauma and pain before death for the victim, and afterwards for those left having to deal with the fact that someone has just killed their loved one. How is this similar to a man and a man being in a reciprocal relationship, in which both love each other, both are happy, both are content? How is it similar to two women finding companionship with each other, feeling safe, feeling like they can trust the other with anything and everything? It's no more similar to that then it is to a man and a woman sharing the exact same feelings.

Ah, but you say statistics show that homosexuals are on average more unhappy with their lives than heterosexuals, and that homosexual relationships hardly if ever last through life. Indeed, the average homosexual male will have multiple times the sexual partners in their lives than the average heterosexual. I hardly find the happiness in that.

Besides which, like I said, and have been saying all along, sin is subjective. It is not absolute. I don't think homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't mean I'm just ignorant, it means that I don't think it's a sin while you do. That's all. You cannot claim that something is a sin just because you think it's bad. It's not hurting anyone. It's not hurting you. It's not immoral, because morals are, as is sin, subjective, and up to each person to decide upon. The worst argument someone can make is to say, "no, it's a sin because I said so." Well, some people thought it was a sin for a White man and a Black woman, or vice-versa, to have a relationship; what makes that any less valid than what you're saying? Catholics think it sinful and immoral to divorce; what makes that any more correct than what you think (if you think differently)? I'm not saying you should convert to their views, necessarily, but I am saying that you shouldn't claim something to be absolute when it's not, just because you think it's more right. It holds no weight.

Neither sin nor morals are subjective. In this belief, nothing could be considered a sin, and therefore nothing is wrong. The truth is, however, sins apply the same to every living person on this planet as well as morals. Murder is universally wrong; no matter what the circumstances, it should not be performed. Indeed, divorce could be called a sin. However, which is the greater sin, leaving your partners or committing adultry or possibly murder? To God there is black and white, while to us their can be grey, because certain sins affect us at certain times in certain ways. No matter how indirect or immediatly effective the negative consequences are of a sin, it is just that, a sin.

No, you are the one making the claim - it is your job to support it, not someone else's. Besides that, I'm fairly sure that your first quoted site was a religious one, too...meaning that any claims will be made in order to justify the prejudice apparent on the page, because it's "wrong" to be whatever they say is wrong, and there has to be some kind of evidence, right? Right?

Yet you yourself make the claim that homosexuality isn't wrong and isn't genetic, yes? Yet you have given no evidence to support this except for the statistics of homosexuality in animals, which I have already explained.

And yes, I know you've said that you don't equate anal sex with gay sex, but then, if you didn't, why does your argument hinge upon it so much? I've already told you that this is a debate about homosexuality, not the "merits" of sexual conservatism - so why do you keep making reference to the "evils" of anal sex if it has no relevance to homosexuality? And while you may think you've listed various forms of damage that only happen in anal sex and not vaginal, you're actually yet to do so. Epithelial tearing? Happens in both. STD infection? Happens in both. Tenderness of the penetrated orifice? Happens in both.

The damage in anal sex however happens more severely and frequently. It is a more dangerous thing, infecting something thats job is to remove wastes from the body; especially if these wastes carry bacteria that make their way into the infection, no matter how minor. I argue against unnatural sex because that is the only way homosexuals can have intercourse. These ways are dangerous to the body and should not be practiced; nor should homosexuality which encourages them.

Why should I give you outside evidence of myself when that's what I'm referring to when I mention myself? You made claims that I must have been through something traumatic and it "turned" me bisexual; you also told me that I "must" have chosen to be bisexual. You made those claims. I refuted them. You cannot tell me I'm wrong - because I am the only one who knows, and you are not qualified to tell me about myself, no matter how much you might like to think you can. I asked you to parallel the situation you try to tell me is true of me by supplying me with the version that applies to you, which only you will know (i.e., did you choose to be straight?) - and I am yet to hear back from you what your answer is. I'm not asking you to say, "well, this professor says this", because that has no relevance to you. That's what you seem to be missing - when I say something of myself, I'm the only one who can make the claim or refute it later, if I end up doing so. You cannot do this for me. You are the only one who can make a claim of yourself and later refute it, if you end up doing so - because you are the only one who knows. I cannot do this for you. But I'm not trying - and there's the crucial difference; I'm not trying to teach you about you as if you don't know and I do, but you are trying to teach me about me as if you know and I don't. It's fallacious - and perhaps you find the prospect of confronting that fearful. I don't know. You do, though - and something else you know is whether or not you chose to be straight. So, did you? All you've said has told me that you don't think you did. So, what does that say for your argument that I must have? It has no weight, because you wouldn't know and you can't parallel it for yourself.

I refer again to the fact that one cannot know everything about oneself. That is what psychiatrists are for; they generally have knowledge of a person the person themself does not have. I am not claiming to be a psychiatrist; I gave examples of how you became bisexual. Last I saw, you have given no other evdidence or reason as to how you became bisexual except that it must be genetic, which I have been disproving all along.

I never said there was conclusive evidence that it was genetic, did I? No. So, what's your problem? You're the only one making "is-isn't" statements beyond your ability here. Can you not remember? Apparently not. All you've said is just an opinion; you have no conclusive evidence, and you can't rely on personal knowledge, as I can - so you're left with only the ability to listn to what other people say, and try to make out as if it's the absolute among absolutes. A little like your "my concept of sin is absolute, you're just not aware of it", stance, too. In other words, it's folly. Would you trust a woman, called A for the sake of things, to be able to say, rightly, that her labour as she was giving birth to child a, was more painful than woman B's labour as she gave birth to child b? No, because one person's experience is theirs alone, not someone else's. One person's knowledge of themselves is theirs alone, not someone else's - so woman A can't say that he labour was more painful than woman B's, because she doesn't know what woman B's labour was like. But, your logic tells me that you think that woman A could say it; are you prepared to stand by that, or not? If so, then you really have problems with logic and illogic; if not, then my point is made.

I have not based my entire argument around what one person said; I have based it around what one God said, the only God, and the only one to know absolute truth. You have told me this entire debate that I have no evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, which I clearly do. I am not making claims beyond my reach at all; homosexuality cannot be logically or technically genetic based on the requirements; and it cannot be unnavoidable by any trustworthy definition.

What does this even mean? I'm saying that homosexuality isn't forcing anything upon you, so...you're telling me that homosexuality isn't forcing anything upon anyone? Well done. I'm sure, however, that you mean something like, "you say this, but I say that" - and yet, you claim to have evidence that you actually don't have. Are you being forced to be in a homosexual relationship? No. Are you being forced to accept it? No. What I am trying to show you, though, is that one person being gay with another, and in no way harming you, is not comparable to you standing on the streetcorner on your soapbox, proclaiming them immoral and sinful, and otherwise attempting to belittle them for being who they are. They're not telling you that being straight is wrong; but you're telling them that being gay is wrong. They have a problem with you discriminating - but you're the one discriminating in the first place, not them. Trying to claim that they're harming you somehow is illogical, because they're not, anymore than a straight person or couple would be - and you're not complaining about that, are you?

While a homosexual relationship among two may not harm me directly or (apparently) indirectly, it harms other people. I am not defending myself, I am defending all people; all sin harms someone in some way, whether me or another person, and it should not be enforced because of this. Telling me I have no argument because it does not affect me is pointless; I am fighting in defense of all people, myself included.

No, some things animals do are cultural. We've been through this; if you want to clasp, as well as your white-knuckled fists let you, on dead arguments you've attempted and failed to utilise, then you're the one making yourself look stupid. I've already stated the ways in which one chimp troupe may do things differently than another, and this is what anthropologists regard as culture - changeable actions that are only apparent because of teaching, like using a rock rather than a stick to smash nuts open and scoop out the kernels. However, things such as sexual contact are not cultural, and are not taught; trying to suggest that people don't know how to have sex unless they're taught at some point is stupid, because if that was so then it would be true of all animals, too. But it isn't, is it? Because it's not cultural, it's natural behaviour, as is the fact that one individual from a certain species is going to seek from within its own population to mate with. Or do you wish to purport this as taught, too? I don't think you will, though you may. If you don't, however, then you must think it genetic - which opens up the very real possibility that homosexuality is part and parcel of the attraction between members of one species (particularly because, despite societal disapproval, and a lack of instruction, it has occured all throughout human history). As I've explained, sexuality can, and probably is, and in my opinion definitely is, genetic, which is why there are varying degrees of attraction to one gender over another across all human individuals in all populations. Abive animals? Only if you're willing to see yourself as better than animals, and that is a very Christian, elitist approach to life - one you appear to be quite familiar with, in respect both to animals themselves and to people you don't quite understand.

First of all, according to natural selection, an animal cannot survive with genetics that prevent them from reproducing. If each animal was born and always homosexual, it would die off leaving no remains for similar offspring, and homosexuality would continue to appear and disappear in animal kind. However, it does not.

Things do not always have to be taught in order for them to be known. Already a possible explanation for homosexuality in animals have been given; homosexuality is an outlet of sexual energy towards one of the same gender when they cannot procreate; ie. the one stud for every mare. The males who cannot reproduce release sexual energy upon eachother. Simple enough, and logical enough.

You must be blind. If I type like this, will you be able to take on board something I've said a number of time? I hope so. You remember that thing called Progeria? You remember how it is genetic? You also remember how it is not inherited from the parents? This, then, disproves your ignorant statements about how homosexuality cannot be genetic - because you rely on genetic conditions to be inherited, which is not any sort of absolute (you appear to have trouble with absolutes and telling others what is and isn't, I note). Progeria is not a choice. It IS a genetic condition. Is it inherited? No. So why does it keep happening, if it's a brick wall, as you say homosexuality would be?

Have you any evidence homosexuality is the same as progeria at all? No, and that is why I have continued to ignore that argument. Another point is that just because progeria is not inherited from parent to child, it may be the result of some genetic mutation. So could homosexuality, you say? Then it could not be changed at all; yet it is. Homosexuality is not permanent, not irreversable, and not avoidable. Your apparent ignorance towards this argument seems to blatantly show your refusal to consider it and thus show you exhibit the close-mindedness you constantly accuse me of having.

Besides this, don't try to play the, "all societies are modelled on ours, and vice-versa", card - you know, as all people do, that not all difference has always been accepted in all societies across the world. Black people were once thought to be evolutionary dead-ends, too, with White people the pinnacle of human life (and, indeed, of all life). The same with homosexuality. It was stigmatised, and so most people who were homosexual were not free by the bounds of society to love whom they loved. Rather, they were expected to live out life with someone of the opposite gender, produce children, or risk disenfranchisement (as was the case in Ancient Greece - a man was measured in many ways, one of these being in his production of male heirs to his property; a woman was measured in few ways, one of these being the production for the husband suitable heirs to inherit his property) - so, if it is a condition that depends on the inheritance of genes (which is entirely possible, given that a predominantly heterosexual man is far more likely to have children than not, given that most relationships will be with women), then it could be passed on by the societal pressure on all people to have kids, which all capable of producing children did. Along with their genes, the "gay" genes would be passed on, too. In today's society, we know that there are varying degrees of heterosexuality and homosexuality; gay and straight are not mutually exclusive, and the middle-ground, bisexuality, is not constant. It changes from one individual to the next, which may be indicative of varying amounts of the relevant "gay" genes being present in the genomes of those individuals - and that means that there is a great chance of it being passed on from parent to child, especially if both parents possess a number of the genes.

And homosexuality is able to be changed while racial features are not.

Again, you try to tell me that I must be mistaken about myself, and that I can't be right, even though you have no qualification to do so and I'm the only one who will know. I know there are somethings everyone does not know about even themselves - but are you prepared to say, in all honesty, that you don't know whether you chose to be straight or not? If you're not, then you obviously think you didn't choose, and that it's genetic, which you have no support for, and you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of. Alternatively, you could say that you do know, but that you did choose - meaning that your claims that heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality not are automatically false. Then again, you could say that you aren't sure at all - which means that you have just admitted that you don't know that homosexuality is not genetic, and that heterosexuality is or not - bringing all of your arguments back down to zilch.

Nice, refer to almost any of my above points. I have already clarified what I meant at this point; heterosexuality is genetic because it results in reproduction and is done through sexual organs. Homosexuality is not; it would be an unneffective genetic trait; which, like I raised above in animals, would have disappeared long ago.

At some point in the near future I think I will take my leave of this debate, as both of us are merely repeating ourselves, over, and over, and also because I am going to have to begin both studying for upcoming exams for university, and write several essays for various lectures which I need to put more effort into than I have so far. For the time being, however, I will remain also.

I completely understand. Just stay on as long as you want to I suppose.

guys, why are we talking about fossils? the fact of the matter is, robbing homosexual couples of their rights is immoral. Sorovis never defended his point of why homosexuals aren't allowed to have the same rights. i love how he ducked that issue.

If you had bothered to read any of my posts to the Rusted One you would see I have answered as to why homosexuals should not have the same rights. It would be much appreciated if you bothered to read my posts before criticizing them. Also note I am not going to reply if you directly insult me in any way; if you have a point that is valid and has not been already raised, then I will respond.

[The Rusted One]

So of course any ruptures and fissures in the rectum that can result in dangerous infection and further damage to the body are only minor damage, right? Fact of the matter is, as I have repeated many times, anything can sustain damage no matter how resistant it may be. The rectum is not designed to withstand any sexual activities; therefore it will be damaged when doing so.

I'm not saying it won't be damaged. But the vagina will also be damaged by vaginal intercourse; so just because the epithelial layers are thicker it doesn't make it any more "natural". It's more natural in terms of reproduction, but that's it.

I am arguing right now about homosexual marriage and why homosexuality in general is wrong. Anal sex may not be the focus of homosexuality, but it certainly is involved. Also, lesbians may not do sodomy exactly, but similar activities (ie., foreign objects instead of sexual organs). I have also said that anal sex in general is wrong, and I do not know why you insist on referring to the point heterosexual couples do it as well. I forget how we got on the topic of homosexual sexual activities, but if you wish to return to the basic debate over homosexuality, I will gladly return as well.

I keep saying that anal sex is done by heterosexual couples as well because it seems to be a major point that you keep trying to "prove" homosexuality is "wrong" with. Whether or not anal sex is "wrong" has nothing to do with who the practitioners are, because there is no single select group that does it. Whether or not you think it's wrong, it is not something you can use to justify why you think homosexuality is wrong, because it is not solely limited to homosexuality.

And again I say you do not know everything about yourself and it is pointless to act as if you do. I did not say how you became bisexual, I offered reasons to how it may have come along since there is no evidence it is genetic.

Except that, given the way other genetic "conditions" behave and are exhibited, it would seem to be more likely genetic than not, particularly in that it occurs in nature, which would argue it to be genetic, and most people who are gay or bisexual, etc., are certain they didn't choose, as much as any straight person is certain they, too, didn't choose to be straight and yet still are. And you sort of did try to tell me that I must've chosen, and that I just couldn't remember it.

You proposing that homosexuality is genetic and unavoidable is one proposing since it is unavoidable, then it cannot be a sin in any fair definition. By disproving that, I have shown that it is at some point a choice and is changeable and or avoidable. I would also like to note my reason for homosexuality being a sin is due to the negative effects on the homosexual themself and those around them. At no point did I ever say anything not genetic was automatically wrong.

No, you haven't shown it's not genetic; you haven't disproven that it is, either. And no, even if it were a choice, which I don't think the evidence supports, it still wouldn't be a sin, because there is no reason to call it such. There are negative effects when people speak one language and not the other, and others can't understand them. Straight relationships, too, have negative effects; is it a sin for a married couple, with kids, to remain together if the environment is predominantly hostile due to marital strife? I don't think so; it's not ideal for the child or the people, because they're all in a situation they don't like, but it's not a "sin." Nor is homosexuality, which actually doesn't have negative effects on those involved that outweigh the positives. How is two people in love and being able to be together bad? It isn't. The only people around that might not do well are those that refuse to accept them, which is not the fault of the gay person or people, but the fault of he or she who rejects them.

Fair enough, now I would like you to show me to a site that explains the difference in brain size with homosexuals.

I didn't say there was one; I was using the study of the cadavers used as samples of populations that showed what appeared to be a difference. The study suggested there was difference in the brains in terms of the developments of certain areas, which many of the gay male bodies showed to be similar to those of the females rather than the straight males, which was then called into question because the study wasn't totally conclusive on the sexuality of the straight males, which then led me to make the statements about the probability of the entire group actually being gay - which was incredibly small and almost impossible.

Ah, but you say statistics show that homosexuals are on average more unhappy with their lives than heterosexuals, and that homosexual relationships hardly if ever last through life. Indeed, the average homosexual male will have multiple times the sexual partners in their lives than the average heterosexual. I hardly find the happiness in that.

Would you be joyous about your life all the time if you had people such as yourself now telling you that you were sinning, and that for loving someone of the same gender you were committing what you think should be a crime? I don't think so. It's because of societal attitudes, not because of mental depression, that you'd find a lot of homosexual people are unhappy for. And, as I said before, love in terms of being in love with someone doesn't last; however, the expectations of those who get married to stay together are often what keeps them together (not from without the relationship, solely, but from within as well, with each partner thinking, 'well, I got married - am I just going to give up because I don't feel quite the way I used to?') - as well as the fact that people are creatures of habit, and once something is established that they're used to and isn't something they hate, then they tend just to fall into a rut and not try to break out of it.

Neither sin nor morals are subjective. In this belief, nothing could be considered a sin, and therefore nothing is wrong. The truth is, however, sins apply the same to every living person on this planet as well as morals. Murder is universally wrong; no matter what the circumstances, it should not be performed. Indeed, divorce could be called a sin. However, which is the greater sin, leaving your partners or committing adultry or possibly murder? To God there is black and white, while to us their can be grey, because certain sins affect us at certain times in certain ways. No matter how indirect or immediatly effective the negative consequences are of a sin, it is just that, a sin.

Which isn't true; morals and the concept of "sin" are not universal, and are very subjective. Even within single societies they aren't constant - murder, for instance, is not a sin in all cultures, if there is reason behind it (in Ancient Greece, a person who was caught sleeping with another man's wife could be killed on the spot) - and in our own murder is acceptable in situations of conflict, such as war. I personally don't see war as justifiable, but I'm not the whole of society. Now, divorce isn't a choice between separation and staying together while cheating with someone else - many marriages continue despite cheating, although the two people in the marriage love each other; and many divorces aren't based around the concept of finding new partners, either. I don't see committing adultery as a sin, either (for one, I don't think the concept of "sin" is anymore than a human invention anyway, and for another, whose right is it to judge another person for acting a certain way? Sure, I might not wish to cheat on any partner I may have in my life, but I won't think less of someone just because they did. It's not my business, and affects me in no way. If it was, say, my father cheating on my mother, or vice-versa, I might feel pissed off, angry, upset, etc., but even then I wouldn't hold it against the parent who did it, because people do things that perhaps they shouldn't, but they're not to be judged by their actions. It's hard to explain, and I hope I've said something that makes sense).

Yet you yourself make the claim that homosexuality isn't wrong and isn't genetic, yes? Yet you have given no evidence to support this except for the statistics of homosexuality in animals, which I have already explained.

No, I never said it isn't genetic. I said it isn't wrong, and I think it genetic. I think so given the fact that it occurs naturally in animals, and that heterosexuality isn't a choice, apparently, and that, despite the efforts of many cultures to frown it into non-existence, it still exists. Obviously you don't wish to see it the same way, but that's your choice and I can't help it if you wish to remain ignorant of the truth of the matter (not implying that you're overall ignorant).

The damage in anal sex however happens more severely and frequently. It is a more dangerous thing, infecting something thats job is to remove wastes from the body; especially if these wastes carry bacteria that make their way into the infection, no matter how minor. I argue against unnatural sex because that is the only way homosexuals can have intercourse. These ways are dangerous to the body and should not be practiced; nor should homosexuality which encourages them.

Which is actually flawed, as well - sure, it isn't the safest form of sex, and that I've never said any differently. However, just because it is involved in some homosexual relationships doesn't make it unnatural; and just because there are risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be practiced. If someone wants to drink, they should be able to - they're damaging their bodies, not mine, and if they want to enjoy themselves they should be able to. Same with body piercing; that often leads to infections, but I have no problem with it. It's not my body, it's theirs. The same applies to me - if I want to do something with my body, I should be able to - it's mine, not under anyone else's control but my own.

And no, homosexuality doesn't encourage anal sex any more than heterosexuality does; it's fallacious to claim so, and just shows the typical societal assumptions that anal sex is "gay sex", and that homosexuality is nothing but anal sex, too. I know you've said you don't think so, but I'm talking about society in general.

I refer again to the fact that one cannot know everything about oneself. That is what psychiatrists are for; they generally have knowledge of a person the person themself does not have. I am not claiming to be a psychiatrist; I gave examples of how you became bisexual. Last I saw, you have given no other evdidence or reason as to how you became bisexual except that it must be genetic, which I have been disproving all along.

No, a psychiatrist cannot tell a person something that the person doesn't already know; a psychiatrist can help to explain why they think something, or why they hate their mothers, but they cannot say, "you hate your mother even though you don't have any knowledge of it," and still be taken seriously. Psychiatrists help people understand themselves, but can't tell them what they know of themselves - a psychiatrist is not a psychic, and cannot feel what another person feels, or think what another person thinks, or know what another person knows about themselves. They can only listen and go from what they're given to start off with.

Now, you telling me how I "became" bisexual has no weight - you don't know, and you can only guess. If you claim that I don't know, how can you claim to have any power to make any guesses at all? You can't. You haven't proven anything to me, or to anyone else still arguing against you, which is most people present; I know I didn't choose to be bisexual. If I didn't choose, and their is evidence that homosexuality occurs in nature, then what can I surmise for myself? That I am naturally bisexual. I note that you think heterosexuality natural, but what if it isn't, and you just can't remember choosing? If you've proven homosexuality to be a choice, then I've done so for heterosexuality, too. Relying on "but male and female are complimentary" doesn't help you, as physical gender doesn't have any bearing on mental gender OR on the person you naturally are. It doesn't make you mentally stronger, it doesn't make you befriend certain people and not others, it doesn't make you smarter - so why should it affect the people you love? It doesn't. I don't believe in a "soul", of course, but I don't also believe that the body dictates the mind; the two are quite separate. The body is a result of genes, and so is the mind - you, obviously, will also disagree with me on that, but perhaps that's why you can't understand what I'm saying.

I have not based my entire argument around what one person said; I have based it around what one God said, the only God, and the only one to know absolute truth. You have told me this entire debate that I have no evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, which I clearly do. I am not making claims beyond my reach at all; homosexuality cannot be logically or technically genetic based on the requirements; and it cannot be unnavoidable by any trustworthy definition.

One "god" whom you assume to exist but cannot prove. One "truth" that you adhere to despite the fact that while it says that "god" loves unconditionally, there are conditions. You have not proven homosexuality to be unnatural, or not-genetic (it naturally occurs in animals, therefore debunking that statement - and we are nought but animals ourselves); and you are making claims beyond your ability. You tell me that homosexuality cannot logically be genetic - and yet you have not demonstrated any logistic argument that supports it (claiming that it's an evolutionary block is stupid, because I've already given examples of other genetic conditions that are not inherited and therefore not bred out of the population, and I've also explained how, if caused by a number of genes, it could still exist in all human populations, which it does). Technically it's the same - you haven't given me any arguments to support the claim; and while you say it's not unnavoidable, I say that if you're gay or straight it's genetic. If you're bisexual, it's genetic. If you are someone who used to be one and is now the other, it's genetic. Biologically, it makes sense - evolution is the process in which behavioural biology and physical as well as mental make-up is caused to change - if bisexuality somehow afforded a species stronger prospects of passing on their genes (for instance, it may have been, in our ancestors, that closely-knit bands of males and females could depend on each other for support, and sexual contact may have been a way of reinforcing bonds, as it is in many species today [dolphins, primates, etc., etc.], and this increased their chances of survival), then more bisexuality would be apparent in the members of the population. Heterosexuality would be part of this bisexuality, as would homosexuality, but they would be at the extreme ends of the scale; heterosexuality would be more common than homosexuality, true, because it is far more likely to produce offspring and pass on the genes causing the orientation - and this is perhaps what we see today. However, bisexuality itself would also result in offspring; the more female partners a male could have, the more offspring - but also, the more male partners, the stronger and more far-reaching the alliances and therefore the amount of power a male could get, and the amount of reproduction he could be involved in, would increase. You might, again, choose to ignore this, but on a scientific basis this is far more sound than claiming that something that cannot be proven to exist by any means, and actually has no evidence to suggest its any more than a concept, does exist.

While a homosexual relationship among two may not harm me directly or (apparently) indirectly, it harms other people. I am not defending myself, I am defending all people; all sin harms someone in some way, whether me or another person, and it should not be enforced because of this. Telling me I have no argument because it does not affect me is pointless; I am fighting in defense of all people, myself included.

How are "all people" being harmed by the fact that less than 10% of the population are not having children? I'd say that "all people" were actually suffering more at the hands of your flagrant bigotry, to be honest - you're the on keen on discrimination and persecution and prejudice, and those are what most, if not all, people on the planet and in this world would say was harming everyone. Don't try to take the righteous defender-of-the-people stand here, because you can't. You don't want to defend anything but your own prejudice, and because you're being called out on that, you're trying to disguise it by claiming you're doing something to prevent harm from coming to other people - harm which you still haven't shown to exist anywhere but in your own perception.

First of all, according to natural selection, an animal cannot survive with genetics that prevent them from reproducing. If each animal was born and always homosexual, it would die off leaving no remains for similar offspring, and homosexuality would continue to appear and disappear in animal kind. However, it does not.

First of all, you don't understand natural selection. An animal individual can survive just fine without reproducing. An animals species does need to reproduce, of course, but nobody's saying that there are those animals out there that are wholly, or even predominantly, homosexual. There are individuals within each species, and they need not be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual in order for the species to survive. Nobody's saying that because homosexuality is observed in a species, it is a species of only homosexual individuals. Perhaps your interpretation has misled you on this one, no? I think it must have. Homosexuality, also, does appear and disappear in animal kind if it aids the species. Some animals, remember, are bisexual; this guarantees social alliances, and when they come to breed, they can depend on these alliances and so pass on their bisexual genes more successfully. There are all kinds of reproductive strategies in the animal kingdom, none of which are chosen and all of which are instinctual and genetically based.

Things do not always have to be taught in order for them to be known. Already a possible explanation for homosexuality in animals have been given; homosexuality is an outlet of sexual energy towards one of the same gender when they cannot procreate; ie. the one stud for every mare. The males who cannot reproduce release sexual energy upon eachother. Simple enough, and logical enough.

Except that it's not true, because adolescent males and females in the Bonobo species are actively bisexual despite not being sexually mature. They're not yet sexually mature, and yet they're sexually active - I wouldn't theorise that to be sexual frustration, given that it's population-wide (meaning that if they were really that frustrated, they'd look at each member of the opposite sex and think, "well, I don't actually need to be sexually frustrated at all"). Other species have rape to deal with sexual frustration - i.e., the males not sexually satisfied don't turn to each other, but they rape females. However, you should also not assume that I'm trying to say that rape is okay, because that IS against the will of one of the participants (and there is no "raposexual" orientation like there is hetero-, homo- and bisexual). Sexual frustration leads to violence and sexual crimes, not to homosexuality, or at least in most cases.

Have you any evidence homosexuality is the same as progeria at all? No, and that is why I have continued to ignore that argument. Another point is that just because progeria is not inherited from parent to child, it may be the result of some genetic mutation. So could homosexuality, you say? Then it could not be changed at all; yet it is. Homosexuality is not permanent, not irreversable, and not avoidable. Your apparent ignorance towards this argument seems to blatantly show your refusal to consider it and thus show you exhibit the close-mindedness you constantly accuse me of having.

Have you evidence that homosexuality is not like Progeria? No. You haven't done a full genome sweep to see whether common genes are in homosexual and bisexual people, but not in strictly heterosexual people. Should I ignore all you say? That, apparently, is your solution. You assume that because you can cite a few cases of homosexual people becoming heterosexual that it is "reversable" - but I can do the same for heterosexual people who become homosexual. That automatically counts out heterosexuality, then, from being genetic - meaning that, by your logic, it must be a choice. I'm fully aware that there are cases of gay-to-straight, but there are straight-to-gay cases, too - so what do you make of that? I'll tell you what I make of it; that sexuality is genetic, and that, up till the point in life when this person "reversed" whatever sexuality they were (straight or gay), they hadn't met anyone of the gender they thought they didn't like that they found sexually attractive. Genetic tendencies are also not always exhibited until a certain age is reached (premature baldness, for instance, comes with age, as do some instances of Type 1 diabetes, which is not related to diet). Trying to argue a case by giving only half the story doesn't get you anywhere.

And homosexuality is able to be changed while racial features are not.

And heterosexuality is able to be changed - will you agree that it, then, must also be a choice and not genetic?

Nice, refer to almost any of my above points. I have already clarified what I meant at this point; heterosexuality is genetic because it results in reproduction and is done through sexual organs. Homosexuality is not; it would be an unneffective genetic trait; which, like I raised above in animals, would have disappeared long ago.

But you assume that physical gender dictates mental gender, which it doesn't. Sexual reproduction is the only way for us to pass on our genes, and depends on male and female - but heterosexuality isn't about sex anymore than homosexuality is. The relationships involved in both are what most people want, not sexual reproduction - and love and affection doesn't automatically lead to children, either. If you wished to argue for heterosexuality being natural on the basis of gender, you'd need to argue from the standpoint that all we really need to do is have sex with as many people of the opposite gender as possible. However, the relationship is what people desire, and that does not rely on gender - so using gender of the body to argue your point doesn't accomplish anything for you. Besides, no, if homosexuality were genetic, then it would survive in forms such as bisexuality for the most part (which it does in Bonobos), and in us we could say the same. Strict homosexuality would be rarer, because it would not be so easily passed on, but it would still exist due to the "scale" on which it is measured and how far towards one end each individual may be. You would get middle of the road bisexuality, you'd get heterosexuality due to the fact that genes would be passed on, and you'd get a small amount of pure homosexuality, which we have in our species.

I completely understand. Just stay on as long as you want to I suppose.

I was actually thinking last night that I've only got four weeks left to do study for, so unless I was to update this thread once a week, I probably shouldn't let myself become more involved. Aside from this, it does take a lot of effort, and I don't just forget about it when I log off, and I'd rather be able to concentrate fully on study, etc., that spend my time debating this and saying the same things again and again. So, I think this will be my last post; my arguments are still the same, and though you've not changed my opinion or my knowledge, I'm certain you could say I've not changed what you think either. However, it has been interesting debating, if not at many times frustrating. I certainly don't agree that homosexuals should not have the same rights, because that is wilfull discrimination, and you would likely not accept it if it happened to Christians, but I've already made that clear, as I have my position on the rest of your views.

[Green_Pikachu]

If you had bothered to read any of my posts to the Rusted One you would see I have answered as to why homosexuals should not have the same rights. It would be much appreciated if you bothered to read my posts before criticizing them. Also note I am not going to reply if you directly insult me in any way; if you have a point that is valid and has not been already raised, then I will respond.

first off, i didn't insult you in my last post. and, no, you haven't answered my question. i am asking you directly, and i would like you to answer it directly. you said homosexual couples do not deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. how can you justify that being ok?

[Sorovis]

I'm not saying it won't be damaged. But the vagina will also be damaged by vaginal intercourse; so just because the epithelial layers are thicker it doesn't make it any more "natural". It's more natural in terms of reproduction, but that's it.

I'm going to leave my reply to this one where it belongs; in the first post I answered it in.

I keep saying that anal sex is done by heterosexual couples as well because it seems to be a major point that you keep trying to "prove" homosexuality is "wrong" with. Whether or not anal sex is "wrong" has nothing to do with who the practitioners are, because there is no single select group that does it. Whether or not you think it's wrong, it is not something you can use to justify why you think homosexuality is wrong, because it is not solely limited to homosexuality.

Yes, but tell me this; what ways could any homosexuals have sexual intercourse that would be vagi nal sex in the natural sense? None. Any sex between a homosexual couple will be some place that gives 'pleasure' which, regardless of whether you say that is what sex is for, will cause damage the body is not designed to withstand. I also re-state the point that anal sex and other unnatural forms are more likely to cause the two people to contract STD's, a point Checkmate himself brought up earlier on.

Except that, given the way other genetic "conditions" behave and are exhibited, it would seem to be more likely genetic than not, particularly in that it occurs in nature, which would argue it to be genetic, and most people who are gay or bisexual, etc., are certain they didn't choose, as much as any straight person is certain they, too, didn't choose to be straight and yet still are. And you sort of did try to tell me that I must've chosen, and that I just couldn't remember it.

I have already explained why it occurs in nature, and the reason is certainly by any means not genetic.

I told you how you must have made a choice at some point like a scientist assumes an extinct species must have lived at a certain time in a certain place; all evidence points to it, even if the aforementioned scientist was not there to see it happen. Obviously I am not saying that you absolutely decided to become bisexual at some point; but I do believe somewhere along the line something happened which in some way caused you to become bisexual.

No, you haven't shown it's not genetic; you haven't disproven that it is, either. And no, even if it were a choice, which I don't think the evidence supports, it still wouldn't be a sin, because there is no reason to call it such. There are negative effects when people speak one language and not the other, and others can't understand them. Straight relationships, too, have negative effects; is it a sin for a married couple, with kids, to remain together if the environment is predominantly hostile due to marital strife? I don't think so; it's not ideal for the child or the people, because they're all in a situation they don't like, but it's not a "sin." Nor is homosexuality, which actually doesn't have negative effects on those involved that outweigh the positives. How is two people in love and being able to be together bad? It isn't. The only people around that might not do well are those that refuse to accept them, which is not the fault of the gay person or people, but the fault of he or she who rejects them.

Very well, if you're saying that love outweighs any terrible deaths or lives that befall homosexuals, then please do so despite the fact that statistics show the majority of homosexuals have more sexual partners than the average heterosexual by many times; certainly not true love by any means. Along with that is the statistic showing homosexuals are also much more likely to commit suicide.

I didn't say there was one; I was using the study of the cadavers used as samples of populations that showed what appeared to be a difference. The study suggested there was difference in the brains in terms of the developments of certain areas, which many of the gay male bodies showed to be similar to those of the females rather than the straight males, which was then called into question because the study wasn't totally conclusive on the sexuality of the straight males, which then led me to make the statements about the probability of the entire group actually being gay - which was incredibly small and almost impossible.

But in order for one to make the conclusion that it was homosexuality that altered the brain sizes, one must rule out all possilities. It could just as easily have been various STD's that caused the difference in brain mass.

Would you be joyous about your life all the time if you had people such as yourself now telling you that you were sinning, and that for loving someone of the same gender you were committing what you think should be a crime? I don't think so. It's because of societal attitudes, not because of mental depression, that you'd find a lot of homosexual people are unhappy for. And, as I said before, love in terms of being in love with someone doesn't last; however, the expectations of those who get married to stay together are often what keeps them together (not from without the relationship, solely, but from within as well, with each partner thinking, 'well, I got married - am I just going to give up because I don't feel quite the way I used to?') - as well as the fact that people are creatures of habit, and once something is established that they're used to and isn't something they hate, then they tend just to fall into a rut and not try to break out of it.

Would I be joyous all my life if I were not the best athlete, extremely unpopular for a great amount of time, and told by homosexual supporters and atheists that what I followed was all fiction and I was an idiot for following it? All my life I have been surrounded by people who tell me the Bible is ficticious and flawed; yet I am a perfectly happy human being. Saying because 'society shuns them' is the reason they are unhappy is not an accurate thing to say at all; indeed, much of society actually supports them.

As I have said before, love does last, and what is left after years of marriage is not a simple attatchment to the person developed over those years; while the passion may disappear, the love will remain.

Which isn't true; morals and the concept of "sin" are not universal, and are very subjective. Even within single societies they aren't constant - murder, for instance, is not a sin in all cultures, if there is reason behind it (in Ancient Greece, a person who was caught sleeping with another man's wife could be killed on the spot) - and in our own murder is acceptable in situations of conflict, such as war. I personally don't see war as justifiable, but I'm not the whole of society. Now, divorce isn't a choice between separation and staying together while cheating with someone else - many marriages continue despite cheating, although the two people in the marriage love each other; and many divorces aren't based around the concept of finding new partners, either. I don't see committing adultery as a sin, either (for one, I don't think the concept of "sin" is anymore than a human invention anyway, and for another, whose right is it to judge another person for acting a certain way? Sure, I might not wish to cheat on any partner I may have in my life, but I won't think less of someone just because they did. It's not my business, and affects me in no way. If it was, say, my father cheating on my mother, or vice-versa, I might feel pissed off, angry, upset, etc., but even then I wouldn't hold it against the parent who did it, because people do things that perhaps they shouldn't, but they're not to be judged by their actions. It's hard to explain, and I hope I've said something that makes sense).

At no point anywhere did I say people should be judged by their actions; I believe they should be only to a degree, but not to a severe discriminate degree where one refuses to believe they cannot change; if I believed that, I would not be arguing here that homosexuality cannot be changed (your point did make sense, but I don't agree with it).

Morals may not be universal now, but tell me, if you went to a culture where cannibalism was a common practice and your friend was eaten, would you disagree? You are in their culture, and what they do is their morals-- but does this make it right? Not at all. Morals are universal and should be taught universally; believing there are no constant morals is to abandon the world to a state of anarchy; anythig can be justified, but that does not make it right.

No, I never said it isn't genetic. I said it isn't wrong, and I think it genetic. I think so given the fact that it occurs naturally in animals, and that heterosexuality isn't a choice, apparently, and that, despite the efforts of many cultures to frown it into non-existence, it still exists. Obviously you don't wish to see it the same way, but that's your choice and I can't help it if you wish to remain ignorant of the truth of the matter (not implying that you're overall ignorant).

But I have already explained why homosexuality happens in nature. I also have said why heterosexuality isn't a choice as well.

Which is actually flawed, as well - sure, it isn't the safest form of sex, and that I've never said any differently. However, just because it is involved in some homosexual relationships doesn't make it unnatural; and just because there are risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be practiced. If someone wants to drink, they should be able to - they're damaging their bodies, not mine, and if they want to enjoy themselves they should be able to. Same with body piercing; that often leads to infections, but I have no problem with it. It's not my body, it's theirs. The same applies to me - if I want to do something with my body, I should be able to - it's mine, not under anyone else's control but my own.

I'm not exactly sure, but do you wish to get off the topic of anal sex altogether and return to our main debate?

Anal sex is not just for one person however; it involves two people, both of which may be damaged. It is very likely due to publication and such that the negative consequences of anal sex may remain mostly unknown.

We cannot abandon people to do as they wish with eachother because both people consent; I refer to my earlier example of the neighbor who wishes to die and the other who is willing to kill him/her.

And no, homosexuality doesn't encourage anal sex any more than heterosexuality does; it's fallacious to claim so, and just shows the typical societal assumptions that anal sex is "gay sex", and that homosexuality is nothing but anal sex, too. I know you've said you don't think so, but I'm talking about society in general.

I am arguing any sexual intercourse other than vagi nal intercourse is unnatural; homosexuals cannot have vagi nal intercourse. If you want to argue why all other forms of sex are unnatural and damaging, then I will gladly do so as well.

No, a psychiatrist cannot tell a person something that the person doesn't already know; a psychiatrist can help to explain why they think something, or why they hate their mothers, but they cannot say, "you hate your mother even though you don't have any knowledge of it," and still be taken seriously. Psychiatrists help people understand themselves, but can't tell them what they know of themselves - a psychiatrist is not a psychic, and cannot feel what another person feels, or think what another person thinks, or know what another person knows about themselves. They can only listen and go from what they're given to start off with.

But with a general knowledge of the human psyche, they can give very accurate information to a person the person themselves may not know consciously; ie., through dream interpretation. People can actually harbor dangerously negative feelings towards another without being consciously aware of it, which is one way dream interpretation is useful.

Now, you telling me how I "became" bisexual has no weight - you don't know, and you can only guess. If you claim that I don't know, how can you claim to have any power to make any guesses at all? You can't. You haven't proven anything to me, or to anyone else still arguing against you, which is most people present; I know I didn't choose to be bisexual. If I didn't choose, and their is evidence that homosexuality occurs in nature, then what can I surmise for myself? That I am naturally bisexual. I note that you think heterosexuality natural, but what if it isn't, and you just can't remember choosing? If you've proven homosexuality to be a choice, then I've done so for heterosexuality, too. Relying on "but male and female are complimentary" doesn't help you, as physical gender doesn't have any bearing on mental gender OR on the person you naturally are. It doesn't make you mentally stronger, it doesn't make you befriend certain people and not others, it doesn't make you smarter - so why should it affect the people you love? It doesn't. I don't believe in a "soul", of course, but I don't also believe that the body dictates the mind; the two are quite separate. The body is a result of genes, and so is the mind - you, obviously, will also disagree with me on that, but perhaps that's why you can't understand what I'm saying.

And once again I have explained why homosexuality in animals occurs, so scratch that and all you have to say you were born that way is to just assume it is genetic. If I saw evidence to see that homosexuality was genetic; if I saw the actual 'gay' gene, I would believe that people are born that way. No such gene has been found, and homosexuality in nature has been explained; so at some point something must have caused you to be bisexual, conscious decision or not.

One "god" whom you assume to exist but cannot prove. One "truth" that you adhere to despite the fact that while it says that "god" loves unconditionally, there are conditions. You have not proven homosexuality to be unnatural, or not-genetic (it naturally occurs in animals, therefore debunking that statement - and we are nought but animals ourselves); and you are making claims beyond your ability. You tell me that homosexuality cannot logically be genetic - and yet you have not demonstrated any logistic argument that supports it (claiming that it's an evolutionary block is stupid, because I've already given examples of other genetic conditions that are not inherited and therefore not bred out of the population, and I've also explained how, if caused by a number of genes, it could still exist in all human populations, which it does). Technically it's the same - you haven't given me any arguments to support the claim; and while you say it's not unnavoidable, I say that if you're gay or straight it's genetic. If you're bisexual, it's genetic. If you are someone who used to be one and is now the other, it's genetic. Biologically, it makes sense - evolution is the process in which behavioural biology and physical as well as mental make-up is caused to change - if bisexuality somehow afforded a species stronger prospects of passing on their genes (for instance, it may have been, in our ancestors, that closely-knit bands of males and females could depend on each other for support, and sexual contact may have been a way of reinforcing bonds, as it is in many species today [dolphins, primates, etc., etc.], and this increased their chances of survival), then more bisexuality would be apparent in the members of the population. Heterosexuality would be part of this bisexuality, as would homosexuality, but they would be at the extreme ends of the scale; heterosexuality would be more common than homosexuality, true, because it is far more likely to produce offspring and pass on the genes causing the orientation - and this is perhaps what we see today. However, bisexuality itself would also result in offspring; the more female partners a male could have, the more offspring - but also, the more male partners, the stronger and more far-reaching the alliances and therefore the amount of power a male could get, and the amount of reproduction he could be involved in, would increase. You might, again, choose to ignore this, but on a scientific basis this is far more sound than claiming that something that cannot be proven to exist by any means, and actually has no evidence to suggest its any more than a concept, does exist.

And yet I have given a good explanation of why homosexuality occurs in animals and why it cannot be genetic; Progeria is unchangeable, homosexuality is able to be changed. Your ideas on how bisexuality could be beneficial for animals is useless, especially given my explanation generally accepted by the open-minded.

So what's your proof the world is not created by one God? That argument has raged around us for weeks now, and so far evidence in support of God is numerous as well as scientifically supported. Do not tell me I have no evidence when it floats around this debate freely.

How are "all people" being harmed by the fact that less than 10% of the population are not having children? I'd say that "all people" were actually suffering more at the hands of your flagrant bigotry, to be honest - you're the on keen on discrimination and persecution and prejudice, and those are what most, if not all, people on the planet and in this world would say was harming everyone. Don't try to take the righteous defender-of-the-people stand here, because you can't. You don't want to defend anything but your own prejudice, and because you're being called out on that, you're trying to disguise it by claiming you're doing something to prevent harm from coming to other people - harm which you still haven't shown to exist anywhere but in your own perception.

So of course you have evidence that I am prejudice against something unavoidable, and that I discriminate on the same issue, do you not? No, you don't. Do not tell me I am being discriminatory against a perfectly natural group when we are debating it here and now; assuming I share your point of view on my own actions is one thing, telling me I am a bigot as if it were already a proven fact is a completely different thing; one that does not help you at all.

I have given enough evidence towards the harms of homosexuality, unless you want to say all of these statistics I have found and posted are in 'my own perception'. They are in my perception as well as everyone elses, and to say otherwise is to blatantly ignore the truth in the world around you, something you have frequently accused me of in the past. Never tell me I have not posted any evidence 'my own perception' again.

First of all, you don't understand natural selection. An animal individual can survive just fine without reproducing. An animals species does need to reproduce, of course, but nobody's saying that there are those animals out there that are wholly, or even predominantly, homosexual. There are individuals within each species, and they need not be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual in order for the species to survive. Nobody's saying that because homosexuality is observed in a species, it is a species of only homosexual individuals. Perhaps your interpretation has misled you on this one, no? I think it must have. Homosexuality, also, does appear and disappear in animal kind if it aids the species. Some animals, remember, are bisexual; this guarantees social alliances, and when they come to breed, they can depend on these alliances and so pass on their bisexual genes more successfully. There are all kinds of reproductive strategies in the animal kingdom, none of which are chosen and all of which are instinctual and genetically based.

I think you seem to be misinterpreting natural selection as well as what I said. Where did I say one species is exclusively homosexual? I did not. Where did I say homosexual animals would not be able to pass on the genetics to their children and therefor continue the line of homosexual animals? In my last post.

Once again I have already explained why homosexual behaviors occur in animals. Without a female to release sexual energy on, males of a species may instead release it on other males, or even inanimate objects as has also been observed.

Except that it's not true, because adolescent males and females in the Bonobo species are actively bisexual despite not being sexually mature. They're not yet sexually mature, and yet they're sexually active - I wouldn't theorise that to be sexual frustration, given that it's population-wide (meaning that if they were really that frustrated, they'd look at each member of the opposite sex and think, "well, I don't actually need to be sexually frustrated at all"). Other species have rape to deal with sexual frustration - i.e., the males not sexually satisfied don't turn to each other, but they rape females. However, you should also not assume that I'm trying to say that rape is okay, because that IS against the will of one of the participants (and there is no "raposexual" orientation like there is hetero-, homo- and bisexual). Sexual frustration leads to violence and sexual crimes, not to homosexuality, or at least in most cases.

But that does not deal with what I said. Sexual maturity does not have to factor in to sexual pressure and how it is dealt with at all, and saying so is pointless. If they are able to be bisexual, then they are able to release sexual pressure through sexual actions towards members of their own gender.

Have you evidence that homosexuality is not like Progeria? No. You haven't done a full genome sweep to see whether common genes are in homosexual and bisexual people, but not in strictly heterosexual people. Should I ignore all you say? That, apparently, is your solution. You assume that because you can cite a few cases of homosexual people becoming heterosexual that it is "reversable" - but I can do the same for heterosexual people who become homosexual. That automatically counts out heterosexuality, then, from being genetic - meaning that, by your logic, it must be a choice. I'm fully aware that there are cases of gay-to-straight, but there are straight-to-gay cases, too - so what do you make of that? I'll tell you what I make of it; that sexuality is genetic, and that, up till the point in life when this person "reversed" whatever sexuality they were (straight or gay), they hadn't met anyone of the gender they thought they didn't like that they found sexually attractive. Genetic tendencies are also not always exhibited until a certain age is reached (premature baldness, for instance, comes with age, as do some instances of Type 1 diabetes, which is not related to diet). Trying to argue a case by giving only half the story doesn't get you anywhere.

Wonderful then that I already explained how Progeria and homosexuality are not related then isn't it? If homosexuality was the result of genetics similar to that of Progeria, it could not be changed. Any lines drawn between Progeria and homosexuality were made by you and your own observations; not insulting your intelligence, but you have attacked me for doing similar things.

I have already told you what I think of straight to gay cases; if you want to see it, refer to my previous posts and/or points in this very post.

And heterosexuality is able to be changed - will you agree that it, then, must also be a choice and not genetic?

No, I will say you need to refer to my previous posts to see what I already said about this issue.

For your times sake, here is what I said: This actually supports that homosexuality in general is a choice; it has no genetic basis nor any physical basis to support it's being natural or a respsctable alternative lifestyle. To find what caused the heterosexual to become homosexual is important, so other causes of homosexuality would be learned.

But you assume that physical gender dictates mental gender, which it doesn't. Sexual reproduction is the only way for us to pass on our genes, and depends on male and female - but heterosexuality isn't about sex anymore than homosexuality is. The relationships involved in both are what most people want, not sexual reproduction - and love and affection doesn't automatically lead to children, either. If you wished to argue for heterosexuality being natural on the basis of gender, you'd need to argue from the standpoint that all we really need to do is have sex with as many people of the opposite gender as possible. However, the relationship is what people desire, and that does not rely on gender - so using gender of the body to argue your point doesn't accomplish anything for you. Besides, no, if homosexuality were genetic, then it would survive in forms such as bisexuality for the most part (which it does in Bonobos), and in us we could say the same. Strict homosexuality would be rarer, because it would not be so easily passed on, but it would still exist due to the "scale" on which it is measured and how far towards one end each individual may be. You would get middle of the road bisexuality, you'd get heterosexuality due to the fact that genes would be passed on, and you'd get a small amount of pure homosexuality, which we have in our species.

But it does; physical gender and mental attractions go hand in hand; any attempt to express physical attractions in sexual intercourse would lead to a type of sex different than vagi nal, which I have argued is unnatural and harmful; unless of course you believe in a homosexual relationship with no intercourse whatsoever. I have also explained why homosexuality is otherwise harmful in my above responses and posts previous to this.

I was actually thinking last night that I've only got four weeks left to do study for, so unless I was to update this thread once a week, I probably shouldn't let myself become more involved. Aside from this, it does take a lot of effort, and I don't just forget about it when I log off, and I'd rather be able to concentrate fully on study, etc., that spend my time debating this and saying the same things again and again. So, I think this will be my last post; my arguments are still the same, and though you've not changed my opinion or my knowledge, I'm certain you could say I've not changed what you think either. However, it has been interesting debating, if not at many times frustrating. I certainly don't agree that homosexuals should not have the same rights, because that is wilfull discrimination, and you would likely not accept it if it happened to Christians, but I've already made that clear, as I have my position on the rest of your views.

Well, it was good debating with you, although like you said at some times frustrating. While I have not changed my views towards anything you have argued with me on, this debate as a whole (and alot of this attributed to you and Rambunctious) has helped me define my beliefs and forced me to think about them on logical levels; something I rarely did previous to this debate. In conclusion, nice debating with you and good luck with your studies.

first off, i didn't insult you in my last post. and, no, you haven't answered my question. i am asking you directly, and i would like you to answer it directly. you said homosexual couples do not deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. how can you justify that being ok?

I justify that as being okay because homosexuality is unnatural, changeable, and damaging to the homosexuals themselves both psychologically and physically. I do not believe behavior such as this should be encouraged, but instead stopped before it leads to support for something damaging.

I also never said you insulted me in your last post; I said I would not respond if you did, which you have frequently done in the past (I am glad to see now you are not).

[Checkmate]

It would seem to me that this entire record-breaking debate has come to a draw. I can see the evolution debate has popped up again, but the issues we're fighting seem to be stalemating.

We have presented plenty of defenses for Christianity, and have defended against the attacks. Though I admit that we have none proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is where faith comes in. I've used up most of my current knowledge on the subjects, so I'm probably going off.

I'd respond to TRO's attacks on the gospel, but he's off the thread.

I haven't heard anything other than statements to prove that homosexuality is genetic. The Rusted One has attacked us making arguing with suggestions (like my skin idea) and done the same. (including his Progeria idea) So I don't see how you can say that it isn't a choice.

TRO and I agreed that feelings cannot be wholly relied upon.

In my opinion this debate has run its course.

Checkmate, please go ahead with your proof supporting the bible. It's been a long while since I've had a good debate on the topic.

One last note, sorry I couldn't give you the 'good debate' you were hoping for, Damian.

This will probably be my last post on this thread.

[Damian Silverblade]

You actually did a pretty good job of it. It's just the debate didn't exactly remain on biblical history, which meant trying at the same time to come up with refutation for your points while handling all the other points that were being brought up by the others. The result being that we couldn't really have a real debate, but still.

[Sorovis]

Actually in my view it was a collection of debates, and the individual debaters frequently switched topics.

We had one on homosexuality which I and the Rusted One were in; Biblical historical accuracy which you and Checkmate were in; and the scientific accuracy of the theory of evolution, which yeah5 and Rambunctious were in. Of course there were other people who debated as well, and many of those listed above debated in other areas; but those were the main people present.

So yes, all in all it was a good debate, or collection of debates if you prefer. Of course it was also very time consuming and I hope that one of these does not arrive every other month.

[Pokemaster Matt]

and I hope that one of these does not arrive every other month.

Sucks to be you. If this is dead, I'll give it at a fortnight at most for something else like this to spring up.

[Sorovis]

Yes but I seriously doubt it will reach the thirty-three plus days this one carried on for. It pretty much depends on which person feels like debating; if it's between me and the Rusted One again it could go for years before one of us gave in.

[ace]

[QUOTE="Raz"] I have no problem with it in private schools

What are you implying by that??

[Sorovis]

Umm, I think he was implying he has no problem with it in private schools.

[Pokemaster Matt]

Yea, Sorovis, I know. Most of the time, they only last a few weeks with shorter posts.

[Sorovis]

I don't know though. I kind of thought the debate was somewhat fun; despite the stress and tension involved.

Raz: How come you never really became involved?

On an ending key, this debate (or collection of the aforementioned) is pretty much done. It was very interesting though. Unless anybody wants to continue the debate I think this will be my last post on here.